Plans scrapped to build 3 new factories in US due to tax on medical devices

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. To contact the administrator / webmaster : click here!

2.3 percent increase in a sales tax is not the difference between building 3 new factories and NOT building 3 new factories for a single company... Think THEN post... Their profits ARENT so razor thin...

So, show us the math, or at least give us a source.

Originally Posted by DontBeAfraid

I would love for you to show me the math of 2.3 percent sales tax turning into 50 percent... Bozo.

That's a classic Straw Man Fallacy. You have completely twisted and distorted the position in order to deceitfully misrepresent the position.

No one said a 2.3% sales tax turns into a 50% tax, and only you would be dumb enough to say something as stupid as that.

Originally Posted by GamerGal

Except you said that 2.3=50. Wait a minute...

So 2.3 now equals 15 and 50? I love how they claim 2.3=15 which then equals 50. Wow that is some math there Jena.

Looks like you and idiot graduated with MA's in Straw Man Fallacies.

No one except you and idiot would stoop to such lows to completely misrepresent what Jena said or what the article claim. No one said 2.3% sales tax turns into a 50% sales tax. The claim made is very simply this, and I'll try to put it using as many one and two syllable words as humanly possible so your little brains can understand.

A 2.3% sales tax on the manufacture turns out to be a 15% tax on the end-user. The manufacturer is originally saddled with the 2.3% tax increase when they make the sale to a whole-sale distributor. The wholesale distributor must pay more, and as a result, increase the prices of the medical devices when when they sell them to retailers or other distributors. Since retailers and distributors are paying higher prices, they must increase the sale price of the medical devices to cover their losses to the end-users, so the price ends up increase in this instance about 15%.

That 15% price increase for the end-user results in lower gross revenues, which results in lower net revenues, which results in lower gross profits, which results in lower net profits, which bars the company from building new facilities -- because you know -- it costs money to build new facilities -- I mention that just in case neither of you were aware of that.

That is the claim being made -- so address the true claim -- no some fantasy claim you made up to make yourself look stupid.

Originally Posted by DontBeAfraid

Now show me how 2.3% turns into 50%...

I never said 2.3% turns into 50%. You and Gomer Pyletard made that claim in Straw Man fallacy in failed attempt to embarrass Jena, which has now back-fired right into your butt-ugly faces.

Your inability to employ even the simplest of logic is astounding. You simply cannot grasp something that happens everyday Globally, and that is a 2.3% sales tax on the manufacturer turns into a 2.3% price increase, which then turns into a 2.3%+4.6% price increase when wholesalers and distributors attempt to cover their costs and maintain their profit margin when selling the medical devices to retailers or users, like CVS, Rite-Aid, Walgreen's, various pharmacies and hospitals, and that turns into a 2.3%+9.2% price increase --- or higher --- when sold to the end user.

Originally Posted by DontBeAfraid

Show me how 2.3% = 30,000,000 USD...

No one ever said it did. You are the one who made that claim, because you acted stupidly and then got backed into a corner and shown to look like a fool.

Only fucking a retard would make such a ridiculous fantasy claim -- especially in an attempt to distort and misrepresent someone's position to make yourself look superior -- which has back-fired right in your face.

Originally Posted by DontBeAfraid

While you are making the idea of elasticity SEEM like something complicated the math behind it is as simple as finding out which lengths the sides of a rectangle need to be to yield the biggest area...(its always a square... and elasticity is just as easily determined)... but that doesnt make your off topic rant any more relevant to my math inquiry...

It is neither "off-topic" nor irrelevant and it is not simple math.

Contrary to your claim, elasticity is not easily determined. If you had a BA in Economics (like I do), you'd know that. In order to determine the elasticity of your product or services, you must conduct a survey of users to see how they'll react to changes in prices (or you have to pay to hire a consulting firm to do that for you -- which is what 90% of companies do), then statistically analyze the data and then do your cost scenarios.

Originally Posted by DontBeAfraid

If you REALLY think you are on to something though... Explain to me how medical care and by necessity medical equipment are highly elastic when it comes to demand... Your argument applies really really well to the price of movie tickets or a hotdog vendor... but not as well to healthcare... or water...

And who says medical devices are highly inelastic? Are there no substitutes? Of course there are substitutes -- used medical devices --- refurbished medical devices -- etc etc etc.

The following are exempted from the tax:

Exempts from the tax Class I medical devices, eyeglasses, contact lenses, hearing aids, and any device of a type that is generally purchased by the public at retail for individual use.

And contrary to what you believe, there are substitutes for health care, like homeopathic remedies, non-prescription medications, supplements, and other such things.

And while water has no substitute, it doesn’t prevent households and businesses from enacting stringent conservation of water, to reduce their consumption and limit what they must pay.

Obamacare's Medical-Device Tax Kills Patients, Not Just Jobs

My colleague Robert Book has written a compelling analysis of Obamacare’s medical-device tax, which concludes that it will destroy about 14,000 and perhaps up to 47,100 jobs. The 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices is a savage blow to innovation. Note that this tax is on sales, not profits. It cuts into the top line, not the bottom line. If not repealed, this tax will start hitting medical-device makers on January 1, 2013.

Nice try though….I’ll give you a point for being Stupid in a No-Stupid Zone.

Originally Posted by GamerGal

Come on righties. YOU MADE THE CLAIM THAT 2.3= 50. We're still waiting for this amazing new math

You are the one who made that claim in a pathetic attempt to distort and deceive.

That's part of the Liberals attempt to hide the stench of their Penis Envy and Breast-implant Envy by cloaking it in the mantra of Compassion™.

And if you want to see how an increase in price can result in a 50% margin loss, then look at the charts I posted -- it's all right there.

Originally Posted by sweetvelocity

I agree that a 2.3 tax is not a reasonable reason to squash business growth....

You agree on what rational, logical or factual basis? Your "feelings?" Your feeling are immaterial and irrelevant.

Originally Posted by sweetvelocity

The source alone should be a big red flag of BULLSHIT for you. Fox News is NOT a reliable source.

Fail. In my response to Calliope's pathetic post fawning over The Warrior Boy-King™ and the Peace-Loving Genocidal Skull-Smashing Kumbaya Indians™, I posted an article that was published before Fox News aired it.

You might want to get some rope and tie your knees down so they don’t keep jerking into your face.

Originally Posted by sweetvelocity

Jena, why should I vote for a man that has personally capitalized off shipping American jobs overseas?

You don't have a 401(k)? Because if you did, then you capitalized off "shipping American jobs overseas." You can make a video of yourself committing hari-kari for our amusement.

Originally Posted by sweetvelocity

You did not answer the question.

The question is stupid, so why would anyone answer it?

Originally Posted by sweetvelocity

While we do have a shortage of alternative energy companies producing unique and necessary components, we do not have a shortage of willing employees. In short, Obama has a reasonable excuse and Romney is just a greedy business man.

You mean like Solyndra?

Originally Posted by sweetvelocity

Because domestic manufacturing in alternative energy grew for the first three years Obama was in office. Unfortunately the Oily hammer of the GOP has squelched the possibility for more growth in that sector for the time being.

You mean like Solyndra?

I love people like you. People like you are ignorant, uneducated and ill-informed, and you'll destroy the US faster than a nuclear war ever could.

"Alternative energy" comes at a cost. A cost that you are totally ignorant of and unwilling to pay in the end.

You ignore every study ever done that shows that for each "green job" created, you lose 2 to 2.5 jobs. You ignore the fact that alternative energy requires Capital and other resources, and that increases Demand and results in price increases. Your food prices will continually rise because you stupidly chose to produce corn-based ethanol, and as of January 1, 2012, you're supposed to be using cellulostic plants to produce all of the remaining billions of gallons of ethanol for your short-sighted E85 mandate.

So, tell us, Sweetvelocity, which of your crop fields are you going to plow under to start growing cellulostic plants? Hmmmmm? Are you going to plow under your cucumber crops, creating a shortage of cucumbers and drive up the price of cucumbers and pickles? Or do you intend to plow under your wheat crops and drive up the price of wheat and all food-stuffs made from wheat? I have a suggestion, why don't you plow under your corn crops to grow cellulostic plants? That way you could drive up the price of price of ethanol and the price of gasoline, plus drive up the price off food products.

Wouldn't that be grand?

Once upon a time, in the United States, there was an American corporation named Zenith that manufactured consumer electronic devices like televisions, stereos and radios. But in a foreign land far, far away, there was a Korean corporation called Life's Good, or LG for short. LG also manufactured consumer electronic devices like televisions, stereos and radios. But LG had a number of distinct advantages over Zenith: LG's labor force was paid far less than Zenith's over-paid union workers; LG did not have to suffer through and pay through the eyeballs for senseless bureaucratic regulations that accomplish absolutely nothing very slowly; and LG paid far less in corporate taxes than Zenith, plus LG was subsidized by the Korean government, while Liberals in the US fought to take away everything they could from Zenith.

LG was able to sell their products to 6.6 Billion people all over the whole Earth; but poor Zenith could only sell their products to 30 Million O Canadians, 312 Million Americans and 300 Million Western Europeans.

LG made massive profits, while Zenith made very little in profits. LG took it's massive profits and started buying up all the Zenith stock it could on the Dow Jones.

By 1995, LG had acquired 51% of all Zenith stock and so ---- LG owned Zenith. Over the next several years LG continued to buy more and more Zenith stock on the Dow Jones until one day in 1999, Zenith was no more -- it no longer existed, because it was now completely owned by a foreign corporation, one from Korea, named LG.

Now, what is so goddam hard to understand here?

You are just 312 Million people; you are nothing; you are irrelevant in the grand scheme of things; you are meaning and totally unnecessary; you are just a small drop of water in big frigging ocean that has 6.6+ Billion people screaming for consumer goods -- and if you cannot sell to them -- then you lose.

And you cannot sell to them paying ridiculous $48/hour union wages saddled with all manner of taxes and other regulatory nonsense.

I'll put it another way.....in order for an American corporation to stay alive....to stay in business....then they must be able to compete in the Global Market which is 95.5% of the friggin' Earth. US corporations are competing against foreign corporations who pay less in corporate taxes, and who are subsidized by their governmetn tax dollars, who are not burdened by bureaucratic nonsense, and the wages of their workers are lower, so it costs less for them to produce goods.

So you can continue to live in a fantasy world and I'll laugh my ass off when the US because just another ritzy Belarus, or you can wake up and get with the program.

This White House photograph is made available for publication by news organizations or personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.

That's a classic Straw Man Fallacy. You have completely twisted and distorted the position in order to deceitfully misrepresent the position.

No one said a 2.3% sales tax turns into a 50% tax, and only you would be dumb enough to say something as stupid as that

Actually windbag, had you BOTHERED to read the thread, you would see that that is EXACTLY the claim that was made...

A 2.3% sales tax on the manufacture turns out to be a 15% tax on the end-user. The manufacturer is originally saddled with the 2.3% tax increase when they make the sale to a whole-sale distributor. The wholesale distributor must pay more, and as a result, increase the prices of the medical devices when when they sell them to retailers or other distributors. Since retailers and distributors are paying higher prices, they must increase the sale price of the medical devices to cover their losses to the end-users, so the price ends up increase in this instance about 15%.

So now its 2.3% = 15%...

It is neither "off-topic" nor irrelevant and it is not simple math.

ya it is...

Contrary to your claim, elasticity is not easily determined. If you had a BA in Economics (like I do), you'd know that. In order to determine the elasticity of your product or services, you must conduct a survey of users to see how they'll react to changes in prices (or you have to pay to hire a consulting firm to do that for you -- which is what 90% of companies do), then statistically analyze the data and then do your cost scenarios.

A Bachelors in Arts... LOL... no wonder you think its hard math... No wonder you think running tangentially from a particular argument is still on topic... No wonder you think 2.3% = 15%... BA... good job tiger.

I aggressively attack stupidity... If you feel I am being aggressive, well....

Obviously - total tax burden would indicate that that is the total tax burden. Total, as in all taxes added together. So I would figure fed corp tax, state corp tax, maybe a local corp tax, property tax, intangible tax, plus whatever other taxes they pay. As I already stated - I am not privy to their financial information.

This is great news for the US. A potential 1500 jobs in the mid-west are not going to happen due to a tax on medical devices that goes into effect next year. Cook Medical was planning to open 3 new plants but cite the medical device tax as a reason to scrap the plans. The new tax is going to cost Cook Medical approximately 20 million per year and they will therefore look to expand their plants in other countries.

Cook Medical ALREADY HAS multiple points of presence in other countries. And if they IMPORT their products into the US, they will STILL face any tax on sales of the product. If they make them HERE but sell there in other countries, NO tax. So completely disingenuous rhetoric.

Cook Medical ALREADY HAS multiple points of presence in other countries. And if they IMPORT their products into the US, they will STILL face any tax on sales of the product. If they make them HERE but sell there in other countries, NO tax. So completely disingenuous rhetoric.

This White House photograph is made available for publication by news organizations or personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.

Ah yes those poor poor rich people
But they need more tax breaks!
Because that just isn't enough PROFIT

Of course what do you expect from Mitt the Twit?
"Let Detroit Die"
But then he attacks Obama for not saving enough of Detroit

Great, another off-topic comment and more irrelevant cartoons with examples from GG The Lying Propaganda & Disinformation Artist™.

This a great example to deconstruct Liberal Propaganda & Disinformation.

Note how the issue is framed: $342 Million in Profits.

But, aren't there 5 oil companies mentioned? Yes, ExxonMobil (formerly Standard Oil of New Jersey before becoming Exxon and merging with Mobil), AmocoBP -- a foreign oil company based in the United Kingdom who purchased Standard Oil of Ohio and then later acquired Amoco, Chevron (who acquired UNOCAL), Royal Dutch Shell -- another foreign oil company based in the Netherlands, and Conoco-Phillips.

So we have 5 oil companies, with 3 being American and two being foreign -- that's part of the lies and propaganda.

Next, let's divided the $342 Million in profits by the 5 oil companies to get the average profits:

$342,000,000 / 5 = $68,400,000

So each of the 5 oil companies -- including both of the foreign oil companies -- average only $68 Million in profits. If we look at earlier information provided courtesy of JenaS62, we see:

Some more pertinent information that the sack of runny excrement intentionally omitted in an attempt to deceive you: US corporations pay more in taxes than corporations in other countries, and foreign corporations are subsidized by their respective governments. When Chevron goes to bid on a geologic tract of land, Chevron has only an average of $68 Million. That might seem on par and very fair with British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell, but those can bid higher, and so can Statoil the Norwegian owned oil company, and Gazprom of Russia and many others.

Think of it as a criminal case by the State, where you are the defendant. You have only the resources that you have, but the State has deep-pockets and virtually unlimited resources to come after you. That's what US oil companies, and in fact all US companies are up against in the Global Market-Place.

So let's penalize Chevron, ExxonMobil and Conoco-Phillips any way we can, so they can end up being owned by British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell, Total (France) and other foreign oil companies, because, you know that makes a lot of sense.

This White House photograph is made available for publication by news organizations or personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House.

"Most political predictions are made by biased pollsters, pundits, or prognosticators who are either rooting for Republicans or Democrats. I am neither. I am a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, and a well-known Vegas oddsmaker with one of the most accurate records of predicting political races.

Neither Obama nor Romney are my horses in the race. I believe both Republicans and Democrats have destroyed the U.S. economy and brought us to the edge of economic disaster. My vote will go to Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson in November, whom I believe has the most fiscally conservative track record of any Governor in modern U.S. political history. Without the bold spending cuts of a Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, I don’t believe it’s possible to turnaround America.

But as an oddsmaker with a pretty remarkable track record of picking political races, I play no favorites. I simply use common sense to call them as I see them. Back in late December I released my New Years Predictions. I predicted back then- before a single GOP primary had been held, with Romney trailing for months to almost every GOP competitor from Rick Perry to Herman Cain to Newt- that Romney would easily rout his competition to win the GOP nomination by a landslide. I also predicted that the Presidential race between Obama and Romney would be very close until election day. But that on election day Romney would win by a landslide similar to Reagan-Carter in 1980.

Understanding history, today I am even more convinced of a resounding Romney victory. 32 years ago at this moment in time, Reagan was losing by 9 points to Carter. Romney is right now running even in polls. So why do most pollsters give Obama the edge?

First, most pollsters are missing one ingredient- common sense. Here is my gut instinct. Not one American who voted for McCain 4 years ago will switch to Obama. Not one in all the land. But many millions of people who voted for an unknown Obama 4 years ago are angry, disillusioned, turned off, or scared about the future. Voters know Obama now- and that is a bad harbinger.

Now to an analysis of the voting blocks that matter in U.S. politics:

*Black voters. Obama has nowhere to go but down among this group. His endorsement of gay marriage has alienated many black church-going Christians. He may get 88% of their vote instead of the 96% he got in 2008. This is not good news for Obama.

*Hispanic voters. Obama has nowhere to go but down among this group. If Romney picks Rubio as his VP running-mate the GOP may pick up an extra 10% to 15% of Hispanic voters (plus lock down Florida). This is not good news for Obama.

*Jewish voters. Obama has been weak in his support of Israel. Many Jewish voters and big donors are angry and disappointed. I predict Obama's Jewish support drops from 78% in 2008 to the low 60’s. This is not good news for Obama.

*Youth voters. Obama’s biggest and most enthusiastic believers from 4 years ago have graduated into a job market from hell. Young people are disillusioned, frightened, and broke- a bad combination. The enthusiasm is long gone. Turnout will be much lower among young voters, as will actual voting percentages. This not good news for Obama.

*Catholic voters. Obama won a majority of Catholics in 2008. That won’t happen again. Out of desperation to please women, Obama went to war with the Catholic Church over contraception. Now he is being sued by the Catholic Church. Majority lost. This is not good news for Obama.

*Small Business owners. Because I ran for Vice President last time around, and I'm a small businessman myself, I know literally thousands of small business owners. At least 40% of them in my circle of friends, fans and supporters voted for Obama 4 years ago to “give someone different a chance.” I warned them that he would pursue a war on capitalism and demonize anyone who owned a business...that he’d support unions over the private sector in a big way...that he'd overwhelm the economy with spending and debt. My friends didn’t listen. Four years later, I can't find one person in my circle of small business owner friends voting for Obama. Not one. This is not good news for Obama.

*Blue collar working class whites. Do I need to say a thing? White working class voters are about as happy with Obama as Boston Red Sox fans feel about the New York Yankees. This is not good news for Obama.

*Suburban moms. The issue isn’t contraception…it’s having a job to pay for contraception. Obama’s economy frightens these moms. They are worried about putting food on the table. They fear for their children’s future. This is not good news for Obama.

*Military Veterans. McCain won this group by 10 points. Romney is winning by 24 points. The more our military vets got to see of Obama, the more they disliked him. This is not good news for Obama.

Add it up. Is there one major group where Obama has gained since 2008? Will anyone in America wake up on election day saying “I didn’t vote for Obama 4 years ago. But he’s done such a fantastic job, I can’t wait to vote for him today.” Does anyone feel that a vote for Obama makes their job more secure?

Forget the polls. My gut instincts as a Vegas oddsmaker and common sense small businessman tell me this will be a historic landslide and a world-class repudiation of Obama’s radical and risky socialist agenda. It's Reagan-Carter all over again.

But I’ll give Obama credit for one thing- he is living proof that familiarity breeds contempt."